/m/hall_of_fame

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Seems like in both instances one team contributed a lot more to the Hall of Fame case than the other option(s). Is the Hall going back on its stance that the cap selection is an issue of historical accuracy rather than honoree preference? Does it matter that the honorees are selecting an option that they are not personally profiting by?

As a Cub fan, I would have understood him wearing a Braves cap, but it would have made my heart a little sad. Not unlike his going to the Braves. When the Braves signed Maddux, it was already obvious that he was special. I told my brother that playing for a real organization, I expected Maddux to take a real run at Walter Johnson's win total.

I loved Maddux as a pitcher, and his willingness to at least nod in the direction of the organization where his greatness began just made me love him more.

Is the Hall going back on its stance that the cap selection is an issue of historical accuracy rather than honoree preference?

It is ultimately the Hall of Fame's choice what to display on the cap, or even to picture a cap on the plaque at all. It doesn't surprise me that they ask for honoree preference, nor that they generally abide by that preference because, after all, the preference often aligns with historical accuracy.

Had Maddux stated a preference for a Dodgers cap, they would have shot it down.

Now that a precedent has apparently been set, I expect that logoless plaques will become more common, since most great players do have great years for multiple teams. Players like Dave Winfield and Reggie Jackson may have gone logoless if it had been an option in the past, for example. Mike Piazza might when he finally goes in.

Did the Hall overrule Andre Dawson's desire to have a Cubs logo, or did I imagine that?

I'm surprised by Maddux -- he had that great year on the North Side, but he was everything that was anything about those Braves squads (viz, classy, smart, faintly nondescript as a personality, and magnificent) -- but LaRussa seems like exactly the guy who the "no logo" idea was invented for. He managed excellent teams with great pedigrees that played in both leagues, he did it for about the same amount of time with each team and with about the same amount of success.

I actually think this is a a fun game for the offseason, because it pulls in diverse schools of thought and is essentially irresoluble: look at the guys who were on the ballot this year, and the guys who are coming up over the next few years. Whose hats do they wear, and why? I know some guys are gonna wanna go by straight most-WAR-where determinations, but this is one of the ways in which the HoF is least like HoM.

So here's my list, given this year's inductees and guys who are liable to make it in the next few years (not comprehensive, obvs, and ignoring one-team guys):

Maddux & Glavine: Braves. The ice-cold heart of what could have been the greatest dynasty since the 50s Stinkees, given a few different breaks.F Thomas: White Sox, obvs. When I was 12-13, which was the height of my childhood baseball mania, I had this superstitious belief that the Hurt would hit a home run in his next at bat after I turned on WGN.Piazza: Dodgers. Piazza was a northeastern guy who was the anchor of some good Mets teams, but he was a magical player in his years in LA in a way that he never was in NYC.R Clemens: Leave us ignore the roids, just for the sake of discussion, and it seems like the Red Sox are the obvious team for his cap. He was, to borrow a bit of doggerel from Mr James, a "staff ace on loan" after leaving Boston, no matter how good he might have been in Toronto or Houston.C Schilling: This is one of those where the Fame wins out over the Merit. I'd but Curt in with a Diamondbacks cap, though he's a good candidate for "no logo", given that he excelled for three different teams. Next choice would be Phils.Mussina: Moose's very best year might have been his first year in the Bronx, but it also might have been his second year in Charm City. Given that he was a homegrown ace in Baltimore and a hired gun in NYC, I'd give him an O's cap, though he's another decent candidate for a logoless cap, given that he won a WS and 20 games in NY and neither in MD.Randy Johnson: The sentimentalist in me wants to say it's an M's cap all the way, given that he played in Seattle more than anywhere else and it was there that he became RANDY JOHNSON. But the fact is that Randy Johnson wasn't RANDY JOHNSON in Seattle for any longer than he was in Phoenix, and he doesn't have the monster seasons, the Cy Youngs, or the WS title to show for his time in the best part of America. Reluctantly, I would give RJ a D'backs cap.P Martinez: Red Sox, obvs. In a fairer world, he'd probably be Montreal's greatest player ever.Sheff: No logo was invented for Sheff. So was not making the Hall of Fame because you're a dick. And so was being underrated because you played for like a gozillion teams.

And the first person who suggests that Junior should go in as anything other than a Mariner is going to learn what it's like to be shot with death rays through the internet.

If you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose on Sheffield (I'm not sure why it would be that important to you, but I'll play along), I guess it would actually be Florida (most games and seasons, solid performance, WS title).

Only in the fevered minds of irrational fans. Dude was pretty clear on his rationale, and it included "growing up" in baseball in the Cubs org. That counts. It's not something fans think of, but players certainly have good or bad memories of their minor league years too. The HOF induction is to honor the player, Greg Maddux, not the organization(s) he played for. This in no way detracts from his time in Atlanta, his accomplishments while there, or the franchise's excellence during his tenure there.

Am I odd for identifying La Russa with the A's more than I do with the Cardinals? His time was shorter there, and perhaps he was better in St. Louis, but Oakland is where La Russa became a managing star.

Am I odd for identifying La Russa with the A's more than I do with the Cardinals? His time was shorter there, and perhaps he was better in St. Louis, but Oakland is where La Russa became a managing star.

Who has the worst cap selection among current Hall of Famers? Reggie with the Yankees isn't a great choice but I can see the argument for it. Same with Nolan Ryan on the Rangers. Those places weren't where they played the best, but it was where they were the most famous.

I can't come up with anything worse than Jimmie Foxx and Lefty Grove who both have Red Sox caps on. There's really no defense for that.

TLR should have two or three logos. You would have to wait five minutes for them to change, and people standing on the left side of the plaque would see something different from people standing on the right side of the plaque. </obligatory>

Who has the worst cap selection among current Hall of Famers? Reggie with the Yankees isn't a great choice but I can see the argument for it. Same with Nolan Ryan on the Rangers. Those places weren't where they played the best, but it was where they were the most famous.

Uh really. Maybe because I'm old and lived in SoCal in the 70's, but Ryan's years as an Angel are far more prominent to me then his years as a Ranger.

Torre seems like he should have had no logo if any of these guys should have. LaRussa should probably be a Cardinal but he did play for Oakland in addition to managing them so I can see some attachment to the A's. I'd have forced a logo on them like the HOM does.

TLR should have two or three logos. You would have to wait five minutes for them to change, and people standing on the left side of the plaque would see something different from people standing on the right side of the plaque.

Furthermore, the best logo only comes on at the end of the cycle and for the shortest amount of time.

Am I odd for identifying La Russa with the A's more than I do with the Cardinals? His time was shorter there, and perhaps he was better in St. Louis, but Oakland is where La Russa became a managing star.

I'm a Cardinal fan and I identify TLR with Oakland oftentimes, he was never fully embraced by the city, never moved to St Louis, so never really felt like a Cardinal.

And I'm shocked by Sam's relative passivity on this. I understand Maddux's point of view, but I'm sorry, he is a Brave and should be treated as such. He was barely Maddux as a Cub.

Another Cubs fan who thought he'd go in as a Brave and made his peace with it.

I can see why Atlanta fans might be miffed, but regardless of what logo will be on the gruesome caricature lost in uncanny valley that the HOF passes off as the likeness of its inductees, the writing on the plaque will be almost all Braves. 10 division championships, 3 pennants, and 1 World Championship, all with Atlanta. At best the Cubs will get, "Played 23 seasons with the Braves, Cubs, Dodgers, and Padres."

Or, maybe, we can take Maddux at his word and assume that he loved Chicago, was grateful to the Cubs for being his original organization and didn't want to be seen as taking a shot at either them or the organization where he spent a decade as one of the greatest pitchers in the history of the game. That would seem to be the simplest, most reasonable and generous reading of Maddux's thoughts here, as opposed to finding some dark hints of unspoken and un-rumored conflict between Maddux and the Braves.

Of course, I would say that, as I'm a Greg Maddux fan. Robert has spent the last decade or so bitterly complaining about the horror of having to deal with Greg Maddux on his favorite team, so we clearly come to this from different POVs.

No, that was the reported plan. But it was the word of this deal, on top of previous issues (I think there was some dispute over Winfield's choice, I believe), that led the Hall to determine that it would have final say on what cap would be on the plaque. In Wade's case, it's a Red Sox cap.

They will allow the players to state a preference, but they will veto if they don't feel it's a proper representation (Carter wanted to go in as a Met. Dawson also preferred a Cubs cap, but wasn't as vocal about it. Both are in under the inexplicable elb logo).